Koshas (sheaths)

Meerkat said:

Sure, it's a commentary, but it appears consistent with the actual text, in both content and meaning. What I don't find consistent with the text is your ideas about the sheaths being "unreal" and so on. It feels like you're ignoring what the text actually says, because it doesn't fit with what you've been told.

Could you provide some clear textual support for your interpretation? Maybe another Upanishad, or the 'Gita, or whatever?

Click to expand...

shivsomashekhar said:

These aren't my ideas . It comes from Shankara's commentary, which I have posted verbatim.

The crux of Shankara's view is that Brahman alone is real and all perceived duality is ultimately unreal. The snake-rope analogy is perhaps the simplest illustration. In poor light, a rope is mistaken to be a snake. But when illuminated, it is seen to be what it is - a rope. There never was a snake. Shankara's commentaries on the sutras, the Gita and the Upanishads will always tie up to this view.

For more examples, look for his commentaries on the Upanishads that proclaim the Maha-vakhyas. Neti neti, for instance, is interpreted by Shankara as not this, not this... to support a Nirguna (attribute-less) Brahman for attributes => duality and duality is unreal.

However, Ramanuja looks at it very differently. Neti neti to him is 'not just this, not just this...'. Any description falls short of doing justice to Narayana, for he is more than any description. Hence, the result is not a Nirguna Brahman, but a Brahman with an infinite number of auspicious attributes and no negative attributes.

Click to expand...

Meerkat said:

This Upanishad doesn't say the sheaths are ignorance. It says they are Brahman.
Again, it would be good to see some textual support for your views.
What do the texts actually say about ignorance?

Click to expand...

Aupmanyav said:

1. Would you kindly give me the section and the verse where TU says this. I would like to check.
2. Like I said, even an unenlightened person is none other than Brahman. So the onion example works both ways, and when realization comes, one understands that the whole universe is constituted by just one entity.
3. We, Hindus, are not so text-oriented (like in Abrahamic religions). We are more meaning oriented. Words are there to give us the meaning. And words can be put in many ways.

Click to expand...

Meerkat said:

2. Sure. But I was questioning the ideas put forward about "eliminating" the sheaths, or regarding them as "unreal". And questioning the logic of "Neti-neti", when all sheaths are Brahman. I think this Upanishad is actually pointing at a deepening of experience, rather than a denial of it. So it's all Brahman, but the bliss sheath provides the strongest connection.

3. The problem in this case is that some of the interpretations being put forward appear to directly contradict the text of this Upanishad. Which is why I asked if these interpretations are supported by other texts. Where for example is the textual support for "Neti-neti"? Or is there none?
It's fine if people choose to ignore the texts and just rely on what their guru says, but misrepresenting the texts is another thing.

Click to expand...

SalixIncendium said:

**RULE 10 REMINDER**
​

10. Debating in Non-debate Forums or Posting in DIR/ONLY Forums
Religious forums is structured to provide spaces for many different kinds of conversations. Different kinds of conversations belong in different areas of the forum:

1) Debates should be kept to the debate areas of the forums, including Religious Debates, General Debates, and Political Debates. Debating anywhere other than these forums may result in moderation. Same Faith Debates is governed by special rules described here. Only members of the specified groups(s) can participate in these threads.​

2) All DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) forums are for the use of members who identify with those groups or practices. Debating is not permitted in DIRs; debates between members of specified groups should be posted in Same Faith Debates. Members who do not identify with a DIR group may only post respectful questions; we recommend creating a thread in the Religions Q&A instead where there is more freedom to comment. DIR forums are not to be used as a cover to bash others outside of the DIR group.​

3) The Political World forum has several "only" subforums that are for the use of members who identify with those political leanings. Members who do not identify with those political leanings are not allowed to post there. ​

Members who do not identify as Hindu may only post respectful questions.
Engaging in debate, whether or not one is a member of this DIR, or non-DIR members providing commentary beyond respectful questions is subject to moderation under Rule 10.

If you wish to debate, take it to Religious Debates.​

Click to expand...

Aupmanyav said:

Meerkat, in Advaita, all, that is viewed as things, is unreal - only Brahman, the substrate, the single base of all, is the truth. Therefore, the sheaths also are unreal and mentioned only for the understanding of the seekers, there is no sheath in us or in our mind. Only knowing better (jnana) removes the veils of ignorance, one may call them sheaths. The "bliss sheath" is the final realization. You may call it by any name nirvana, moksha, jeevan mukti, jnana, enlightenment, deliverance (from ignorance), etc.
3. Textual support for "Neti, Neti": Avadhuta Gita 1.25 on Wikisource (Note: This is not the oldest reference, as the verse itself says that this is what is written in the Vedas. I will try to search for the first mention of Neti, Neti. (I have parsed the words of this verse for easier reading.

tattvam asyā adivākyena sva atmā hi pratipāditaḥ l
neti neti śrutih brūyāt anṛtaṁ pāñca bhautikam. ll25ll

Exact translation: By such sentences as "That thou art," our own Self is affirmed. "Not this, not this" is mentioned in the Vedas (Shruti), five elements are untruth.

"Tat twam asi": 'That thou art' - or in plain English 'YOU ARE THAT' is from Chandogya Uanishad 6.8.7, which is part of the SamaVeda:

What is the origin of this world? Space, said he. Verily, all things here arise out of space. They disappear back into space, for space alone is greater than these, space is the final goal.
This is the most excellent Udgitha (song). This is endless. The most excellent is his, the most excellent worlds does he win, who, knowing it thus, reveres the most excellent Udgitha (song).
- Chandogya Upanishad 1.9.1-1.9.2

Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than everything, in the highest world, beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man. - Chandogya Upanishad 3.13.7

This whole universe is Brahman. In tranquility, let one worship It, as Tajjalan (that from which he came forth, as that into which he will be dissolved, as that in which he breathes). - Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1

This is my self in the innermost heart, greater than the earth, greater than the aerial space, greater than these worlds. This self of mine is that Brahman. - Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.3 - 3.14.4

Indeed, he who knows the noblest and the best, becomes the noblest and the best. - Chandogya Upanishad 5.1.1

And the final and the greatest announcement (called a Mahavakya, great sentence, one of the four in Hinduism):
(Sage Uddalaka Aruni instructing his son)

स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदँ सर्वं तत्सत्यँ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो

Sa ya eshonim etad ātmyam idam sarvam, tat satyam, sa atma tat tvam asi Shvetaketo.

O Shvetaketu, that which is the self of all this here, which is the truth, that self is what you are. - Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7
(The best translation by Aupmanyav in preference to the three given in Wikipedia)
Let me mention here that Chandogya Uanishad is not very easy to understand in one reading. It takes much time.
Chandogya Upanishad - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Aupmanyav said:

Meerkat, I downloaded Swami Sarvananda's translation, published by RamaKrishna Mission, of Taittiriya Upanishad because of our discussion. Is that the book that you too have? I go only by Sanskrit text and the English translation. I never go by the notes that the translators put in, because they are their views, and many a times they are completely wrong. I understand a little of Sanskrit, that is why I can get the meaning of verses.

I did not find any mention of Koshas in Taittiriya text. So, it seems we were in a debate which was not at all necessary.
As I have already mentioned, things can be seen from many perspectives. You can see food, prana, manas, buddhi, ananda, all as parts of Brahman, because in Advaitist thought, whatever exists is Brahman only. Even a piece of stale bread is Brahman and nothing else. Or you can focus of Brahman and erase from your mind and intelligence all other things. Both things will be true.

There is no duality in Advaita. Duality is an anathema to Advaita. That is why I am an atheist.

Click to expand...

Aupmanyav said:

There is no mention of layers too. We see things in our ignorance. When we know better, we understand that all things are Brahman only.

Click to expand...

Aupmanyav said:

Yeah, five things are mentioned but not as layers or sheaths, but as a progression. When some body gives another some knowledge, he will give the easy thing first and the more difficult things later, after the easier things have been understood.
To recognize that all things are Brahman is the final achievement in Advaita, it is not ignorance. It is jnana, the culmination of knowledge. Only the ignorant will talk about things, or when somebody who has the knowledge is imparting the knowledge to someone else.
Come on, more questions!

Click to expand...